Letters: Gore cartoon, blight and more

Cartoon is tethered to conservatism

In response to “Hot-air balloons spotted in Rancho Santa Fe” (Steve Breen cartoon, May 24): Congratulations, Steve, for another gratuitous swipe a man who has chosen to become involved in worldwide issues such as climate change.

AL Gore DID win the Nobel Prize for his work in coordinating efforts to disseminate information about man-made impacts about world climate change.

Oh, I forgot that is not a favored conservative viewpoint.

Steve is part of what is wrong with the political dialogue. He demonizes the man, not the message.

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

What was the point of the cartoon at all? If Newt Gingrich visited San Diego County, would he receive the same level of ridicule over his size and inarticulate statements about colonies on the moon?

No, that would not be part of the conservative ethic: demonize liberals, lionize conservatives. – Matthew Serritella, San Diego

Breen’s cartoon inferring Al Gore was full of hot air because he won the Nobel Prize for informing the public on climate change was a nasty swipe at a citizen who has unselfishly served the American public for years. Gore deserves our respect! – Karyl Miller, Pacific Beach

Blight ignored

In response to “Allied Gardens and Grantville: Primed for major development?” (Opinion, May 19): Thousands of apartments being built to the north of Friars Road and Frazee Road. Thousands more built on Linda Vista Road across from USD. Now the developers want to build more high-density apartment complexes in Grantville and Allied Gardens.

What happened to traffic impact studies? Millions of dollars are being added to the bottom line of the developers with no thought as to what is happening to our beautiful San Diego. We can no longer turn a blind eye to what I consider blight – not Grantville and Allied Gardens. – Susan Harrigan, San Diego

A pension pledge

I’ve heard it said since I was just a kid: “put it in writing and sign it.” We all have. Since the elections are for the most part all about pensions, I’d like to see all the candidates “put it in writing and sign it” that they will accept only 1 pension in a lifetime of public service. They will operate from a position of strength and so will the voters. – Allan F. Gies, Rancho Bernardo

Reduced to tiers

When will SDG&E stop messing with solar users ("Compromise needed on solar rate plan," Editorial, May 24)? When I installed my rooftop solar system, 30 months ago, I figured on an eight-year payback of the investment. This was based on generating enough power to stay off of the Tier 3 and 4 price levels.

Then SDG&E changed the rate structure specifically to mess with solar users, by raising the Tier 1 and 2 rates and lowering Tiers 3 and 4. This changed my payback period to about 10 years. But somehow, when I look at my latest bills, the Tier 3 and 4 rates are back up where they were two years ago (while the Tier 1 and 2 remain at their new, higher levels). So I’m up to about a 12-year payback.

Now SDG&E wants to add an additional fee for solar users, and change the rate for net generators. At the same time, they are looking for solar producers to generate peak-time power to keep their grid from shutting down during high summertime demand periods. Does this all small bad?

Can anyone stop SDG&E from repeatedly changing the playing field for solar customers? – H. A. Levine, Rancho Bernardo

SDG&E claims that as “more of its customers install solar panels, its rate system [net metering] becomes increasingly unfair to nonsolar customers,” that net metering is “too generous and doesn’t cover associated costs” and that “this forces its nonsolar customers to subsidize solar customers by $15 million a year." How touching for SDG&E’s concern as it goes before the CPUC seeking to right this wrong for it’s customers!

Does that mean that SDG&E is going to pay the 100 percent that it should of the wildfire claims instead of only the 10 percent with the other 90 percent being paid by ratepayers? No?

Does that mean that SDG&E is going to pay for the Sunrise Powerlink instead of ratepayers paying for 100 percent of it? No?

Didn’t the CPUC last month shoot down SDG&E’s gambit to modify net metering by creating a solar customer transmission fee? So, SDG&E is just at it again under a different guise? Shocking.

Same-sex marriage

Your letter writers who oppose same sex marriage (May 20) seem to universally miss the point. Letter writer Grant Kuhns seems to think that the “best argument for same sex marriage … is economical.” It’s not. The best argument is constitutional. The 14th Amendment precludes the singling out of any minority group of people for the sole purpose of denying them of the civil rights enjoyed by the majority.

And, letter writer George Henry seems to think that this issue cannot be properly addressed without first consulting the Bible. He, too, is incorrect, again on constitutional grounds. Just as the First Amendment provides freedom of religion, it also provides freedom from religion. As the state may establish no religion, religious dogma has no legal basis for legislation. Mr. Henry can quote the Bible, but that does not make any of his observations relevant to the issue.

Its interesting how right-wing types, the U-T editorial staff included, are the first to accuse others of trampling the Constitution, all the while ignoring the parts they don’t like when it suits their views. – Steve Hartman, Poway

Hats off to Molly Cohen (Letters, May 20). She is echoing what I have felt all along on the same sex marriage issue. Marriage to sanctify the union between a man and a woman has been in use in multiple cultures through multiple centuries. In many religions this union is very sacred, and its purpose is the procreation of children, (as well as having the man and wife being helpmates in life).

By using the term “marriage”, the gay community is stepping on many people’s faith and beliefs, thereby making them angry and unable to compromise. I have come to understand that the gay community does have a need for a civil and sacred ceremony to unite those who love each other. I think they might be surprised at how many people would back them up, if only they not use the term “marriage.” I would be one of them. – Marilyn Link, Pacific Beach